International Journal of Early Years Education Vol. 14, No. 3, October 2006, pp. 279–294
The design and implementation of a physical education program to promote children’s creativity in the early years Evridiki Zachopouloua*, Efthimios Trevlasa, Elisavet Konstadinidoub and Archimedes Project Research Group aAlexandrio
Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece; bDemocritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece
30EvridikiZachopoulou 14
[email protected] 00000October 2006 International 10.1080/09669760600880043 CIEY_A_187931.sgm 0966-9760 Original Taylor 2006 and & Article Francis (print)/1469-8463 Francis Journal Ltd of Early (online) Years Education
The purpose of this study was to design and implement a physical education program to promote creativity in preschool children. The study was based on the following phases: (a) to design and formulate 20 physical education lessons in order to provide children with opportunities to develop their creative thinking through the use of movement elements, motor skills and movement exploration; (b) to train early educators to be able to implement the proposed physical education program; (c) to undertake an initial evaluation of preschoolers; (d) to implement the program; and (e) to undertake a final evaluation of preschoolers. Two hundred and fifty-one children, aged four to five years, were randomly selected from 12 preschool centers and participated in the 10-week physical education program. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and estimated with a pre- and post-program creative thinking evaluation. The results showed that children improved their creative fluency and imagination and useful information was provided by children’s behavior during their participation in the proposed physical education program.
Introduction Many national associations and researchers focus on the quality of the educational curriculum and put this as their primary and most important aim. Improvement in the quality of preschool education was the philosophical background of this project. Moreover, qualitative education is the main objective of the EU (OJ C 25 E, 29.01.2002, p. 531).
*Corresponding author. Alexandrio Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Department of Early Childhood Care and Education, PO Box 141, Sindos 57400, Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail:
[email protected] ISSN 0966-9760 (print)/ISSN 1469-8463 (online)/06/030279–16 © 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09669760600880043
280 E. Zachopoulou et al. The All our futures report (NACCCE, 1999) endorses the importance of creativity in both teaching and learning, and the Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage (QCA, 2000) recognizes creative development as a valid and important theme. This position is also supported by the Greek Integrated Curriculum Educational Preschool Program—GICEPP (2002). One of its basic principles is that children must be provided with opportunities to use their knowledge, practise their abilities and continuously learn by promoting searching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making and problem solving, as well as chances to develop and express ideas and emotions in many different ways. Early educators have recognized the importance of creativity within recent education policy and embraced the opportunity to provide for it, accepting the fact that they are surrounded by creative, imaginative and inventive people—children and adults. There is a growing body of research and theories about the elements that contribute to creative development, but there seems to be little evidence about approaches to teaching creativity. As Torrance (1981) suggests, kinesthetic modality is the most appropriate modality for eliciting the creativity of most preschool children, since skills in these modalities are most practised at preschool age. The importance of movement at this developmental stage is also supported by Capel (1986), who believes that movement activities provide children with the opportunity to exercise and develop their inventiveness, creativity, and their spirit of adventure. The creative and motor development of preschool children represents two interrelated aspects of their growth in that one area of development affects the other and also one area of development can be developed through the other (Vygotsky, 1981). A representative result of these two developmental areas is motor creativity, which is the children’s effort to produce movements that represent answers to motor stimuli or solutions to motor problems. The results of many research studies have already proved that motor creativity is directly connected to creative thinking (Cleland & Gallahue, 1993) and critical thinking (McBride, 1991). The connection between moving and thinking is a topic discussed in the recent literature (Athey, 1990; Carter, 1998). Movement gives young children kinesthetic feedback, which means that children link movement and learning through their senses (Bruce & Meggit, 2002). Zaichkowsky et al. (1980) believe that children learn more than motor skills through movement and play, and suggest that they: (a) learn to employ cognitive strategies, (b) understand themselves in psychological terms, and (c) learn how to interact with other children. Researchers in physical education have begun to study students’ movement responses to specific teachers’ actions in order to gain insights about designing and implementing instructional strategies that facilitate students’ learning (McBride & Cleland, 1998; Chen, 2000; Rovegno, 2000; Chen & Cone, 2003). In relation to physical education, many scholars believe that the ability of teachers to structure the learning activities and experiences, to create an optimum learning environment and to interact with children plays an important role in developing and promoting children’s use of creative and critical thinking skills (Buschner, 1990; McBride, 1991; Schwager & Labate, 1993; McBride & Cleland, 1998). According to Vygotsky
Design and implementation of a physical education program
281
(1934/1978), an optimum learning situation occurs in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD implies that interaction with more capable and experienced individuals helps students achieve their potential inquiry and defined goals. Craft (2000), Edwards and Springate (1995), Mellou (1996), Tegano et al. (1991) and Runco (1990) highlight the role of the teacher in providing the optimum balance between structure and freedom of expression for young children. It is argued that teachers and other early childhood workers can encourage creativity by behaviors such as asking open-ended questions, tolerating ambiguity, modeling creative thinking and behavior, encouraging experimentation and persistence, and praising children who provide unexpected answers. It is clear that creative teachers and creative teaching are key components in fostering creativity in young children. To help teachers, Stork and Sanders (1999) compare effective and less effective approaches in the preschool movement education environment. The first step in their outline guidance is the construction of physical knowledge through experimentation, and the effective approach for this step is to present the activities with questions that extend children’s creative thinking and with emphasis on skill practice and investigation. According to Klein (1990, p. 27), ‘Most learning takes place when young children are actively engaged in … experimenting, experiencing, and raising their own questions and finding answers.’ Young children’s experimentation through movement exploration, guided discovery and creative problem solving—which are the most popular and widely used teaching methods in early childhood—are commonly accepted by scholars, researchers and preschool teachers (Mayesky, 1998; Pica, 2000; Sanders, 2002; Davies, 2003). Furthermore, through those teaching methods, critical thinking skills are empowered, thereby allowing children to make choices and decisions (Kirchner et al., 1970; Buschner, 1990). Knowing that each child is born with creative potential and the ages between three and five are thought to be critical years for the development of creativity (Fauth, 1990; Schirrmacher, 1993), early childhood professionals have a tremendous opportunity to encourage and foster those personality traits that promote this. Saracho (2002) also suggests that teachers can promote children’s creative thinking capacities by providing an environment that contributes to their creative thinking potentials. Educators should aim to support creative development and learning in all children. Certainly, an educational curriculum, and more specifically a physical education program, that requires teachers’ imitation from children is not going to promote creative or critical thinking. However, a program that uses movement exploration, discovery, self-expression and problem solving can increase children’s creative thinking skills. Movement could be a powerful tool to promote preschoolers’ creativity, by taking into account the fact that movement during preschool age is the primary and dominant means of action, expression, learning, communication and children’s overall development (Gruber, 1986). According to Cleland (1994), children have the inherent ability not only to learn fundamental movement patterns but also to control their movements and to express them creatively through the performance of different fundamental movement patterns.
282 E. Zachopoulou et al. The important role that movement plays in early childhood education seems to be recognized from the structure provided by the Greek curriculum for nursery schools (GICEPP, 2002; Koutsouvanou, 2003). This cross-thematic curriculum framework sets out directions for programs regarding planning and development of activities in the context of the following subjects: language, mathematics, studies of the environment, creativity and expression (through fine arts, drama, music, physical education) and computer science. It seems that physical education covers part of the fourth direction, whose main objective is the creativity and the expression of each child. However, with a few exceptions, GICEPP does not include specific examples of activities that obtain specific objectives. Thus, the purpose of this study was the design and the implementation of a physical education curriculum intended to develop young children’s creative thinking (finding, respectively, many different motor solutions and the optimal motor solution) and learning. The proposed innovative curriculum, the ‘Archimedes Research Project’, sponsored by the Greek Ministry of Education (EPEAEK II) and the EU, provided children with opportunities to develop their creative thinking through the use of movement elements, motor skills and movement exploration. The main activities of this project were based on playful situations in which children had many chances to activate their creative and critical thinking. Method Participants The sample of this study comprised 251 children (130 boys and 121 girls) of the same ethnicity. These were randomly selected from 12 preschool centers in northern Greece. A class with children aged four to five years was selected from each preschool center. Table 1 shows the distribution of children in the 12 preschool centers. Children did not participate in any type of organized physical activity during the experimental procedure of the Archimedes Project. All children participated with parental permission. The sample also comprised the 12 early educators who were the teachers of the classes selected to participate in the Archimedes Project. Interviews with the early educators were conducted after the end of the implementation of the proposed physical education program. Measures The TCAM test (Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement) of Torrance (1981) was used by trained raters in order to evaluate children’s creativity. The Greeklanguage version of Torrance’s test was used. The administration and the scoring manual were translated back to back from English to Greek and some appropriate adaptations were made. All measures were recorded on TCAM score sheets.
Design and implementation of a physical education program Table 1.
Preschool center 1 Preschool center 2 Preschool center 3 Preschool center 4 Preschool center 5 Preschool center 6 Preschool center 7 Preschool center 8 Preschool center 9 Preschool center 10 Preschool center 11 Preschool center 12 Total
283
Children’s distribution in the 12 preschool centers Number of children
Number of boys
Number of girls
Children’s mean age (± SD)
26 26 18 12 24 17 17 16 23 15 16 13 223
14 13 10 7 6 11 9 6 14 6 11 7 114
12 13 8 5 18 6 8 10 9 9 5 6 109
4 (± 0.3) 4.1 (± 0.3) 4.6 (± 0.5) 4.1 (± 0.3) 4.5 (± 0.6) 4.2 (± 0.4) 4.4 (± 0.5) 4.3 (± 0.4) 4.5 (± 0.2) 4 ± (0.3) 4.6 (± 0.4) 4 (± 0.3) 4.3 (± 0.5)
Fluency (total number of possible responses) and imagination were the two measures for creative thinking. The test includes four activities. For the first activity (How many ways?) the child is asked to run or walk across the room in as many ways as possible. The second activity (Can you move like?) includes six pretend situations, four of them asking the child to move like an animal or object (tree, rabbit, fish and snake) and the other two casting the child in roles related to other subjects (driving a car and pushing an elephant off a desired object). The third activity (What other ways?) requires the child to demonstrate all the ways to put a paper cup in a trash can. For the fourth activity (What might it be?) the child plays with and finds different uses for a paper cup. TCAM’s first, third and fourth activities evaluated children’s fluency, while the second examined children’s imagination. Fluency was calculated by adding the different responses recorded on score sheets. Imagination scores were calculated on a 5-point scale rating (from 1: no movement to 5: excellent imitation). The evaluation of the physical education program was also conducted through the early educators’ interviews. Before the main interviews, pilot interviews were carried out with four early educators (supervisors in early education schools) who did not participate in the present study. This procedure was implemented in order to finalize the interview questions and strengthen the interviewer’s skills. The early educators completed consent forms before each interview. A semi-structured format was adopted, providing depth through question probes. The semistructured interview achieves depth by providing the opportunity on the part of the interviewer to probe and expand the respondent’s responses. It can also provide room for negotiation, discussion, and expansion of the responses (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995).
284 E. Zachopoulou et al. Experimental procedure Two raters, who participated in the Research Group of the Archimedes Project, applied the TCAM test before and after implementation of the program (20 specially designed lessons which promote children’s creative thinking). Raters met with the children one week before the evaluation procedure, playing games and participating with them in many physical activities. The raters visited the groups in advance (for one hour) in order to develop some degree of familiarity and trust. The administration and scoring procedure of the Torrance TCAM test followed the standardized test instructions (Torrance, 1981). The two raters applied the test after their training in the evaluation techniques of the test. For the second activity of the test (Can you move like?) inter-rater reliability was established up to a level of 89% before the beginning of the test. All testing was conducted in the indoor multipurpose room of the preschool centers. The testing room contained enough space for one child to move comfortably. The temperature was comfortable and distractions were kept to a minimum. Efforts were made to avoid taking children from their favorite activities. Children were tested individually and some children’s performance was also recorded on videotape for subsequent analysis and comparison. The use of videotape in connection with live observation helps to ensure accuracy of transcription and inter-rater reliability. Verbal instructions and explanations, which were given to each child in order to familiarize them with the evaluation procedure, were standardized. The order of the TCAM test’s four activities was counterbalanced. The physical education program was conducted by 12 early educators, who had participated in two training seminars in order to deliver all 20 lessons to the children. They were trained in order to be able to: (a) organize developmentally appropriate practices and interdisciplinary teaching, and (b) use creative teaching. They were taught how they could modify a particular activity or game so that it was suitable for all children in the group and how they have to behave and teach to enable children to acquire knowledge. During these seminars the early educators had to be familiar with the new role of teachers, namely as facilitators of learning. Each seminar lasted eight hours, so the early educators had received 16 hours of training by the Archimedes Project research team. The themes of the first training seminar were: presentation of physical education goals for preschool education, definition and analysis of the goals, objectives of the proposed physical education program and presentation of the structure of the daily physical education lesson. The themes of the second training seminar were: description of teaching strategies and teaching methods, analysis of the teacher’s role and behavior, observation of six lessons in practice organized according to the principles of the proposed program, and presentation and analysis of the key points for the effective organization and implementation of the lesson plans. Each training seminar included three theoretical lectures (each one lasting 45 minutes) and two workshops (each one lasting 90 minutes).
Design and implementation of a physical education program
285
Interviews with the early educators, which were conducted after the implementation of the physical education program, had a mean duration of 20 minutes, and they were conducted in quiet rooms after the end of the teachers’ daily program. Each interview was recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The early educators answered questions regarding the impact of the physical education program on children’s behavior, their participation in the program’s activities and their expression of creativity. The interview questions were prior-research driven in order to replicate, extend or refute research findings from the quantitative study (Grammatikopoulos et al., 2005). Examples of the questions include: ‘Have you noticed any changes regarding children’s behavior?’ or ‘Did all children participate in the process of movement exploration?’ For every answer, additional probes and follow-up questions were posed. Physical education program The children followed the 10-week physical education program, which took place twice a week for 35–40 minutes. The trained early educators conducted the program for their classes on the same days every week—Monday and Wednesday—between 10.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon. The 20 lesson plans were written by the Archimedes Project research team especially for this study. These 20 lesson plans were based on four goals: (1) use and modification of movement elements, (2) development of creative thinking during movement activities through exploration, (3) use of movement for experienced learning of concepts of different teaching thematic areas, such as mathematics, and (4) development of critical thinking during movement activities. The first goal, which referred to lessons 1 to 5, dealt with the modification of a given movement to become more appropriate for a given condition, through the understanding: (a) of capabilities of body parts, and (b) of movement elements (body awareness, space awareness and quality of movement). This means that children should learn how they can modify their movements using changes of movement elements. The activities of these lessons asked children to form bridges with their bodies. Bridges must change their height according to the size of the animals which pass under the bridges each time (animals like elephants, snakes, tortoises, cats, etc.). Children were also asked to move from one spot to another answering teacher’s questions, like ‘Can you walk with as many steps as you can or with as few steps as you can?’, or ‘Can you walk as fast or as slow as you can?’ Another activity used a dice that had different locomotion movements on each face, or children were given the opportunity to pass through a high or a short tunnel, above a narrow or a wide stream. There were also activities that encouraged children to throw or roll a ball in various ways, depending on the distance, size of the balls, size of the targets, etc. The second goal, which referred to lessons 6 to 10, accentuated: (a) the usage of body parts and of different objects in various ways, (b) the production of many different movements as responses to a stimulus or as solutions to a given problem, and (c) the production of innovative movements. Children should learn how to take
286 E. Zachopoulou et al. risks through the wording of their own phrases and through the invention of their own games. During these lessons, activities encouraged children to explore and create many different ways to use and move their bodies. Educators gave various stimuli to children, such as to move through a hoop, to cross over a river, to throw a ball, to move one, two or more specific parts of their bodies. Other activities took children on a fantasy story and asked them to express it through movements. The stories were related to the water cycle (water, water vapor, clouds, rain, and snow) or to sea conditions (calm sea, high or small waves). Lessons 11 to 15 referred to the third goal. During these lessons children should have learned to comprehend the new possibilities in movement execution and have been provided with chances based on trust in their opinion and in their abilities. In addition, children were asked to recognize the relations among different concepts, using movement to experience the themes of the different teaching areas. These lessons involved having the children form straight or curved lines, shapes (circles, quadrangles, etc.) and letters with their bodies. The fourth goal, which referred to lessons 16 to 20, encouraged children to discriminate and determine a problem, to set questions, to combine, synthesize and organize their ideas in order to produce a new movement, and to make a decision for the selection of the most appropriate motor response to a given situation. In these lessons, children were encouraged to explore and identify similarities and differences, to compare quantitative concepts such as big–small, wide–narrow, long– short, and to interpret and express an assigned role with movements. Results Results of the TCAM test The final fluency score was the sum score of the three fluency scores (of the first, third and fourth TCAM activities). Means and standard deviations for pre-test and post-test scores for fluency and imagination for the TCAM test are provided in Table 2. To check for possible differences between pre-test and post-test scores, pairedsample t-tests for each factor—fluency and imagination—were used. Analysis indicated statistically significant differences between pre-test and post-test for fluency (t(187) = −10.009, p < 0.05) and for imagination (t(188) = −12.777, p < 0.05). Table 2.
Pre-test and post-test means and standard deviations for fluency and imagination of the TCAM test Pre-test scores
Post-test scores
Variable
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Fluency Imagination
13.56 12.41
7.98 5.84
21.57 17.82
11.77 6.23
Design and implementation of a physical education program
287
TCAM fluency score
25 20 number of 15 motor responses 10 5 0 pre-test fluency
Figure 1.
post-fluency
Pre-test and post-test scores for TCAM fluency
19 17 15 total 13 imagination 11 score 9 7 5
TCAM imagination score
pre-test imagination
Figure 2.
post-test imagination
Pre-test and post-test scores for TCAM imagination
Figure 1 shows the mean pre-test and post-test scores for TCAM fluency, while Figure 2 shows the mean pre-test and post-test scores for TCAM imagination. Figure 2. 1. Pre-test and post-test scores for TCAM imagination fluency
Interview results Analysis of the interview data was carried out in three steps in the form of thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). The data management was organized using NUD*IST software (Qualitative Solutions & Research, 1999). Data analysis resulted in one first-order theme and seven second-order themes. Their frequency of appearance is represented in Table 3. Divergent thinking Most of the early educators’ answers referred to the clear presence of divergent thinking and to the production of unusual ideas: ‘… it was one phrase that children used frequently, “I think something else” … You could observe a kind of competition among children … to think and find something strange, something innovative …’. Fluency The answers revealed that children were able to produce large number of ideas: ‘… their means of expression were reinforced … they started to be involved in a new
288 E. Zachopoulou et al. Table 3.
First- and second-order themes, and frequency of appearance revealed from the teachers’ interviews (N = 12)
First-order theme
Second-order themes
Creativity
Divergent thinking Fluency Self-esteem Imagination Flexibility Independence Openness to experience
Frequency 33 29 26 22 21 15 9
situation … to produce ideas … to find many solutions or means of expression … they started to attempt something new which could be different … this was really important.’ Self-esteem The early educators observed an impressive reduction in children’s hesitancy and inhibitions during their participation in the program: ‘… from the moment this child didn’t participate at all or they participated only with their presence and they started slowly to take courage, to participate and use their mind … to produce such beautiful and strange movements … I was speechless’ and ‘The strange and impressive point was that a girl who didn’t participate at all, after a few lessons not only participated … her behavior was changed. She became more social, she wanted to play more with the other children … she started to show interest in what we did.’ Imagination The early educators’ answers indicated that children activated their imagination when they were asked to produce new activities: ‘… even during the free-play time, children started to think and play differently … they were organized by themselves, they activated their imagination and they found new games …’ and ‘… their imagination surfaced, they found strange scenarios … they used their new movements or ideas during their games …’. Flexibility The early educators observed that children dwelled upon a theme and approached it from many different perspectives: ‘… children acquired a new way of thinking to search new alternative ways of expressions, every time …’ and ‘… the first child started showing something simple and the second and the third said … “I can find something better, more strange” …’.
Design and implementation of a physical education program
289
Independence A remarkable number of the early educators noticed the children’s tendency for autonomy and freedom during their participation: ‘… they started to feel more comfortable, it was easier to express themselves … while they didn’t participate a lot at the beginning …’. Openness to experience The results indicated that the majority of the early educators believed that the children were willing to take risks and make decisions: ‘… when children understood that everything was accepted and interesting, they went ahead … they tried new movements …’. Discussion Ennis (1987) states that formulating hypotheses, alternative ways of viewing a problem, questions, possible solutions and plans for investigating something are creative acts which come under the definition of creative thinking. When children solve fundamental or divergent movement tasks in as many different ways as possible, they must not only generate alternative ideas (i.e. creative fluency) but also act on those ideas (i.e. creative flexibility) using specific criteria to modify and change each movement pattern. These two criteria of creativity fluency and creative flexibility were mentioned by the early educators in the present study. They observed behavior where these elements were obvious. The same result was also indicated from the quantitative data of this study, where the TCAM fluency score increased after implementation of the physical education program. Children who participated in this study were involved actively in the activities, finding and showing their ideas and solutions to early educators’ questions. The kind of question, such as ‘Can you show me different ways to throw …’ or ‘Can you run putting your hands in different positions?’, placed children in a state of enquiry so that the processes involved with seeking solutions were stimulated and divergent thinking was activated. Divergent thinking is an important human cognitive skill, which cultivates multiple ideas or opportunities to solve problems. From an early age children encounter problems that compel them to generate novel solutions. Creative solutions to problems may stimulate the capacity to separate momentary attitude and intimate affiliations in order to be able to generate more novel ideas (Suddendorf & Fletcher-Flinn, 1999). It has been suggested that the major tenets of creativity are: the ability to see things in fresh ways, learning from past experience and relating this to new situations, thinking along unorthodox lines and breaking barriers, using non-traditional approaches to solving problems, going further than the information given and creating something unique and original (Duffy, 1998). This procedure is parallel to the expression of children’s imagination. The results of this study indicated a significant
290 E. Zachopoulou et al. increase not only in fluency but also in imagination (the ability to create mental pictures or ideas, a qualitative feature of creativity). Many activities in this program were designed to sample children’s ability to imagine, fantasize and assume unaccustomed roles, asking them to express stories with movements. Mayesky (1998) points out that one important goal for the early childhood teacher is to provide an adequate knowledge base and skills for children, while at the same time providing an environment that encourages creative thinking in the use of the knowledge and skills. The curriculum is the guide by which teachers determine what will be presented to children. And, as Tegano et al. (1991) mention, creativity is fostered according to how the curriculum is presented to the child. According to the results of the current study, it seems that this innovative physical education curriculum answers the four questions to which Mayesky (1998) drew attention, and is structured and modified to provide opportunities for creative thinking: 1. The content/concept of the curriculum was developmentally appropriate for preschool children. The learning allows the children to be both physically and mentally active, to engage in active, rather than passive, activities. 2. The children were truly interested in the content. The content was relevant, engaging and meaningful to the children themselves. Analysis of the interviews showed that they were willing to participate, to answer teachers’ questions and give new and different ideas. They were ready to modify the known movements and find alternative ways to execute them. 3. The program provided opportunities for divergent thinking, which is a part of creative thinking. There was adequate time planned for exploration and play. The activities encouraged children to be curious and also provided opportunities for them to take the initiative. The children also had opportunities to develop their confidence in their abilities to find and solve problems. 4. Children had many chances to interact and communicate with other children and the teacher. There was a positive atmosphere of acceptance by other children and the teacher. Judgment and evaluation differed so that ideas had plenty of time to be stretched, combined and embellished. As the early educators mentioned, during the proposed program, children who did not participate at all at the beginning, started to be involved, find answers, and propose their ideas. This study also revealed that the proposed physical education program led children to a kind of independence, helping them to feel freer, to be open in the processes of exploration and experimentation of movement. The main core of the program’s activities was the search for new ideas and movements. As Jones (1972) suggests, children have a need for freedom in the selection and execution of different movements. In the same way, it is obvious that children have to acquire a feeling of selfcontrol. Through creative movement, children have the ability to express their feelings and their thoughts, and to act and communicate using their body. This expressiveness, through the body, manifests itself more prevalently than speech. In this way, many children are able to explore, through movement, experiences that are not available to them through words.
Design and implementation of a physical education program
291
This study took place in preschool centers with teachers who had all received specialized training in creative teaching. Tegano et al. (1989) argue that problem finding and problem solving in the preschool context may not occur naturally and that teachers need to alter the structure of a situation to guarantee their occurrence, which requires that teachers know how to use problem-finding and problem-solving strategies to motivate young children’s creativity. Several theorists and researchers acknowledge the multifaceted role that teachers assume in developing young children’s creativity. According to Cleland (1994), indirect teaching styles, creative thinking skills, and critical thinking strategies are also useful and they can significantly improve children’s ability to generate different movement patterns. These strategies include asking questions, comparing and contrasting solutions, evaluating solutions based on criteria provided by the teacher, and analyzing the quality of their movement responses. Its sensitivity to physical education content and teaching styles suggests that if teachers want children to be able to employ creative thinking and critical thinking skills, then they must teach them how to do this. The challenges and the opportunities for the discovery of motor skills and ideas are a powerful motive for voluntary participation of children and for cognitive activation, provided it is of immediate relevance to them. The experience of personal discovery is a catalytic factor for deep and effective learning, and enhances children’s self-confidence. Perhaps the most important opportunity for a preschooler who participates in a physical education program is being able to validate and develop their creative ability. Preschoolers have a great curiosity and active imaginations. Teachers can encourage and stretch these valuable tools by giving them chances, through movement, to imagine, explore, and discover. Early educators can provide children with the time, resources, space, interactions and questions to stimulate creative activities. Thus, a well-organized physical education program for preschoolers can contribute not only to the development of motor skills but also to social and cognitive development. Movement, in combination with rhythmic and creative exercises and games, offers a balanced program, like that mentioned by Kraft (1986) that included a physical education program containing creative movement activities, with the appropriate teaching method, thereby teaching children to use their creative abilities through the exploration of problems and their solutions. Although the results of this study cannot be generalized to other early childhood classrooms, it does demonstrate that the use of creative teaching in physical education programs as a lens through which to view early childhood classrooms can shed light on the role of the early childhood teacher in creating a learning environment focused on children’s physical, cognitive and social development. This is also the belief of many researchers (e.g. Saracho, 1986; Runco et al., 1998) who affirm that creativity is a complex syndrome, which emerges from cognitive, affective, social, and physical realms. The findings of the current study could have implications in three areas: to deepen our understanding of creativity as an integral part of the early childhood curriculum, to expand the use of movement during early years education,
292 E. Zachopoulou et al. and to design in-service professional development and teacher training programs in order to improve the implementation of creative programs. Acknowledgements This study was funded by a research grant from the Greek Ministry of Education and the EU, EPEAEK, Action 2.2.3 (Code 87301), Department of Early Childhood Care & Education, ATEI Thessaloniki. The Archimedes Project research group comprised the following individuals: Eva Vidali-Laloumi, Triantafilia Natsiopoulou, Efthimios Kioumourtzoglou, Elizana Polatou, Ioannis Papastathis, Chrisoula Melissa-Chalkiopoulou, Megalonidou Christina and Tzolia Katerina. References Athey, C. (1990) Extending thought in young children: a parent–teacher partnership (London, Chapman). Boyatzis, R. E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development (Newbury Park, CA, Sage). Bruce, T. & Meggit, C. (2002) Childcare and education (3rd edn) (London, Hodder & Stoughton). Buschner, C. (1990) Can we help children move and think critically?, in: W. S. Stinson (Ed.) Moving and learning for the young child (Reston, VA, AAHPERD), 51–66. Capel, S. (1986) Educational gymnastics meeting physical education goals, Journal of Education, Recreation and Dance, 57(2), 34–38. Carter, R. (1998) Mapping the mind (London, Orion). Chen, W. & Cone, T. (2003) Links between children’s use of critical thinking and an expert teacher’s teaching in creative dance, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 169–185. Chen, W. (2000) Self-assessing expertise in creative dance teaching from constructivist perspectives, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 11(5), 16–18. Cleland, F. (1994) Young children’s divergent movement ability: study II, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 228–241. Cleland, F. E. & Gallahue, D. L. (1993) Young children’s divergent movement ability: study I, Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77, 535–544. Craft, A. (2000) Creativity across the primary curriculum: framing and developing practice (London, Routledge). Davies, M. (2003) Movement and dance in early childhood (London, Sage). Duffy, B. (1998) Supporting imagination and creativity in the early years (Buckingham, Open University Press). Edwards, C. P. & Springate, K. W. (1995) Encouraging creativity in early childhood classrooms (ERIC Digest) (Urbana, IL, ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, ED389474). Ennis, R. (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities, in: J. Baron and R. Sternberg (Eds) Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (New York, Freeman), 9–26. Fauth, B. (1990) Linking the visual arts with drama, movement, and dance for the young child, in: W. J. Stinson (Ed.) Moving and learning for the young child (Reston, VA, AAHPERD), 159–187. Grammatikopoulos, V., Hassandra, M., Koustelios, A. & Theodorakis, Y. (2005) Evaluating the Olympic Education Program: a qualitative approach, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 347–357. Greek Integrated Curriculum Educational Preschool Program (GICEPP) (2002) Available online at: www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps (accessed 20 October 2005).
Design and implementation of a physical education program
293
Gruber, J. J. (1986) Physical activity and self-esteem development in children: a metanalysis, in: G. A. Eckert & M. Eckert (Eds) Effects of physical activity on children: American Academy of Physical Education papers (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 30–48. Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the teacher: a qualitative introduction to schoolbased research (London, Routledge). Jones, T. P. (1972) Creative learning perspectives (London, University of London Press). Kirchner, G., Cunningham, J. & Warrel, E. (1970) Introduction to movement education (Dubuque, IA, Brown). Klein, J. (1990) Young children and learning, in: W. J. Stinson (Ed.) Moving and learning for young children (Reston, VA, AAHPERD), 23–30. Koutsouvanou, E. (2003) Early childhood curriculum and the integrated teaching approach (Athens, Odysseus). Kraft, R. E. (1986) Modern programs—current practices in Britain, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 57(8), 75–78. Mayesky, M. (1998) Fostering creativity and aesthetics in young children: promoting creativity, in M. Mayesky (Ed.) Creative activities for young children (Albany, NY, Delmar), 13–25. McBride, R. E. (1991) Critical thinking: an overview with implications for physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 112–125. McBride, R. E. & Cleland, F. (1998) Critical thinking in physical education, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 69(7), 42–46. Mellou, E. (1996) Can creativity be nurtured in young children?, Early Child Development and Care, 119, 119–130. NACCCE (1999) All our futures: creativity, culture and education (Suffolk, DfEE). Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 25 E, 29.01.2002) p. 531. Available online at: http:// europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOIndex.do? (accessed 17 September 2005). Pica, R. (2000) Facilitating movement experiences: Part 3, in: R. Pica, Experiences in movement with music: activities & theory (Albany, NY, Delmar), 196–227. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2000) Curriculum guidance for the Foundation Stage (London, QCA). Qualitative Solutions & Research (1999) NUD*IST Vivo for qualitative research (London, Scolari Sage). Rovegno, I. (2000) Teaching elements of choreography, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 11(5), 6–10. Runco, M. A. (1990) The divergent thinking of young children: implications of the research, Gifted Child Today, 13(4), 37–39. Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J. & Walberg, H. J. (1998) Personal explicit theories of creativity, Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(1), 1–17. Sanders, S. W. (2002) Active for life. Developmentally appropriate movement programs for young children (NAEYC in cooperation with Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics). Saracho, O. (1986) Play and young children’s learning, in: B. Spodek (Ed.) Today’s kindergarten: exploring the knowledge base, expanding the curriculum (New York, Teachers College Press), 91–109. Saracho, O. (2002) Young children’s creativity and pretend play, Early Child Development and Care, 5, 431–438. Schirrmacher, R. (1993) Art and creative development for young children (Albany, NY, Delmar). Schwager, S. & Labate, C. (1993) Teaching for critical thinking in physical education, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65(5), 24–26. Stork, S. & Sanders, S. (1999) A developmentally appropriate approach to early childhood physical activities, paper presented to the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, New Orleans, 10–13 November. Suddendorf, T. & Fletcher-Flinn, C. M. (1999) Children’s divergent thinking improves when they understand false beliefs, Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 115–129.
294 E. Zachopoulou et al. Tegano, D. W., Moran, J. D. & Sawyers, J. K. (1991) Creativity in early childhood classrooms (Washington, DC, National Education Association). Tegano, D. W., Sawyers, J. K. & Moran, J. D. (1989) Problem-finding and solving in play: the teacher’s role, Childhood Education, 65, 92–97. Torrance, E. P. (1981) Thinking creatively in action and movement (Bensenville, IL, Scholastic Testing Service). Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1978) The collected words of L. S. Vygotsky: vol. I, in: R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds) Problems of general psychology (New York, Plenum Press). Vygotsky, L. S. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions, in: J. V. Wersch (Ed. and Trans.) The concept of activity in soviet psychology (Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe). Zaichkowsky, L. D., Zaichkowsky, L. B. & Martinek, T. J. (1980) The child and physical activity (St Louis, MO, Mosby, Davies).
